No. 19-6109

James Abraham Mata v. United States

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-2255 district-court-judgment federal-prisoner federal-statutory-provisions habeas-corpus record-silence retroactive-decision second-or-successive-motion statutory-provision successive-motion unconstitutional unconstitutional-provision unconstitutional-statute
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-11-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

When seeking relief under a retroactive decision invalidating a federal statutory provision as unconstitutional, what must a federal prisoner show in a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, when the record is silent as to whether the district court based its original judgment on the invalidated provision?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW When seeking relief under a retroactive decision invalidating a federal statutory provision as unconstitutional, what must a federal prisoner show in a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, when the record is silent as to whether the district court based its original judgment on the invalidated provision? No. In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 2018 JAMES ABRAHAM MATA, Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner James Abraham Mata asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 28, 2019.

Docket Entries

2019-11-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
2019-10-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-09-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 31, 2019)

Attorneys

James Mata
Kristin L. DavidsonFederal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent